The mayor wants the Denver City Council to cut its $4.1 million budget by 8 percent (or $350,000) for 2011. Consider the context:
Denver’s 2010 general fund budget is $818 million. The city must cut $80 million from the 2011 expenditures to balance the budget. Personnel costs are 70 percent of the general fund budget. In 2010, employees took furlough days, had no wage increases, and increased contributions for pension and health care.
The biggest piece of the general fund pie is the department of safety, which eats more than half of the budget ($422 million).
Though Mayor John Hickenlooper has asked every city agency to cut 8 percent, it’s not clear if he has the authority to trim the budgets of the three departments headed by independently elected leaders (council, auditor, and clerk and recorder). However, the mayor’s bully pulpit is louder than the council’s, so its members had better do more than whine.
Council members could round up nine votes to bring structural change to the mayor’s budget. They could refuse to approve more than $1 million in on-call professional service contracts in the Department of Technology Services. Or eliminate the Office of Telecommunications, which oversees Comcast’s franchise. The franchise fee generates $5.3 million in revenue, but it’s tough to justify $322,600 in administrative oversight.
Better yet, they could take a scalpel (or hatchet) to the biggest piece of the pie: the Department of Safety, which eats $422 million, more than half of Denver’s budget. Safety’s 2011 budget will be particularly challenging, as fire and police gave up 2010 collective bargaining salary increases. These plus additional wage increases are to be paid in 2011 and 2012.
Could the Department of Safety find $1 million to cut? You betcha! Is that likely to happen in an election year? Not a chance! However, perhaps a 2011 candidate should consider eliminating:
• The Safe City Office, to save $1.2 million;
• The Manager of Safety office, at $2.9 million; and
• Consolidate 911 calls, fire department and ambulance dispatch.
Council members think they’re beholden to fire and police for re-election. The unions are powerful, put feet-on-the-street during campaigns and broadly publicize endorsements. On the other hand, if the city councilors want to retain their office budgets, they’d better do something dramatic.
Last year, the council reduced its $4 million budget by cutting all travel expense, front-office staff and reducing individual budgets by $10,000. As personnel costs total 85 percent of the council’s budget, they have other options:
• Determine why personnel costs are 15 percent higher than other general fund agencies. Replace paid staff with interns or volunteers.
• Use campaign funds for newsletters, supplies and operations. Council offices are part policy, part constituency support and part politics. The line is not clear, but it’s not difficult for incumbents to fund-raise.
• For too many years, the council has put budget savings in earmarked accounts, which is a terrible practice. No elected official is entitled to a slush fund. Charlie Brown set the right example by returning $40,000 to the general fund.
• Cut the council president’s $9,366 “bonus.”
As a former at-large councilor, I have a bias in favor of those positions and would leave them intact.Historically, the at-larges play important roles in big capital projects, major policy shifts and land-use policy. It’s reasonable to expect that a city of 600,000 residents benefit from big-picture thinkers.
If the council isn’t prepared to build a consensus for structural budget changes — including revenue enhancements — they had better find some flesh to cut.
Susan Barnes-Gelt (sbg13@comcast. net) served on the Denver City Council and worked for Mayor Federico Peña.
